There is also a Tibetan translation of the short text, described by Csoma Körösi (“As. Res.” vol. xx. p. 439). Here, though the name of the scene is not mentioned, the speakers are Bhagavat and _S_âriputra. The whole work occupies seven leaves only, and the names of the sixteen principal disciples agree with the Japanese text. The translators were Pra_g_nâvarman, Sûrendra, and the Tibetan Lotsava Ya-shes-sde. M. Feer informs me that there is at the National Library a Chinese text called O-mi-to-king, _i. e._ Amitâbha-sûtra.(134) The scene is at _S_râvastî; the speakers are Bhagavat _S_âriputra. Another text at the National Library is called Ta-o-mi-to-king, _i. e._ Mahâ Amitâbha-sûtra, and here the scene is at Râ_g_ag_ri_ha. There is, besides, a third work, called Kwan-wou-liang-sheu-king by Kiang-ling-ye-she, _i. e._ Kâlaya_s_as, a foreigner of the West, who lived in China about 424 A. D. We have, therefore, historical evidence of the existence of three Sûtras, describing Sukhavatî, or the Paradise of Amitâbha. We know two of them in Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan—one long, the other short. The third is known as yet in Chinese only. Of the two Sanskrit texts, the one from Nepal, the other from Japan, the latter seems certainly the earlier. But even the fuller text must have existed at a very early time, because it was translated by _K_i-lau-kia-_kh_ai, under the Eastern Han dynasty (25-220 A. D.)—_i. e._ at all events before 220 A. D. The shorter text is first authenticated through the translation of Kumâra_g_îva, about 400 A. D.; but if the views generally entertained as to the relative position of the longer and shorter Sûtras be correct, we may safely claim for our short Sûtra a date within the second century of our era. What Japan has sent us is, therefore, a Sanskrit text, of which we had no trace before, which must have left India at least before 400 A. D., but probably before 200 A. D., and which gives us the original of that description of Amitâbha’s Paradise, which formerly we knew in a Chinese translation only, which was neither complete nor correct. The book sent to me was first published in Japan in 1773, by Ziômiô, a Buddhist priest. The Sanskrit text is intelligible, but full of inaccuracies, showing clearly that the editor did not understand Sanskrit, but simply copied what he saw before him. The same words occurring in the same line are written differently, and the Japanese transliteration simply repeats the blunders of the Sanskrit transcript. There are two other editions of the same text, published in 1794 A. D. by another Japanese priest, named Hôgŏ. These are in the possession of Mr. Bunyiu Nanjio, and offered some help in correcting the text. One of them contains the text and three Chinese translations, one being merely a literal rendering, while the other two have more of a literary character and are ascribed to Kumâra_g_îva (400 A. D.), and Hiouen-thsang (648 A. D.).